What about those members of society who elected the judge, District Atty., etc?


yeah, right, sure. ok. alrighty then...........

you wanna think about your question a little more?

Do I need to go on, or do you get it now?

I get it. If you have crooked lawyers, it's possible to have them commit crimes for you.

Fran, how difficult is it to keep some prisoners isolated from unmonitored outside contact? Illustrating failures on the part of a few prisons in respect to a few especially dangerous inmates in no way justifies killing anyone, IMO. It does demonstrate the need for better security procedures however.

I get it. If you have crooked lawyers, it's possible to have them commit crimes for you.

Not just crooked lawyers; there are crooked prison officials and corrections officers, visiting clergy, visiting family members, etc. If there were a foolproof way to allow contact with prisoners and ensure that their visitors didn't serve the prisoner's nefarious plans outside prison walls, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Unfortunately, given the current rules/laws governing those who are incarcerated, there is simply no way to do this. They ARE allowed visitors. They DO have contact with corrections personnel.

Fran, how difficult is it to keep some prisoners isolated from unmonitored outside contact? Illustrating failures on the part of a few prisons in respect to a few especially dangerous inmates in no way justifies killing anyone, IMO. It does demonstrate the need for better security procedures however.

It wouldn't be that difficult to keep violent repeat offenders safely locked away forever. Simply build a concrete box with 3-foot thick walls, no doors, and a tiny slit through which food and various supplies can be passed. No phones, no visitors, no contact of any kind with anyone but the guy who brings the food/toilet paper. (Of course, that guy could be corrupt, too; who's to know?)

That said, do you honestly think the "bleeding hearts" (I use this easily understood term only as a convenience; not as a condemnation of those who fight for prisoner's rights) of the world would allow such "cruel and inhumane" treatment of prisoners? I just don't see it.

In addition, such measures would be outrageously expensive, costing far more than we already spend (read: WASTE) keeping deadly, unrehabable (yeah, I know that's not a word :) ) people in prison for life.

Short of the above, there simply is NO WAY to prevent incarcerated criminals from participating in criminal behavior - up to and including murder outside prison walls.

And THAT'S why I'm in such strong support for the death penalty. It has nothing to do with revenge. It's all about protecting innocent people from their criminal activities. The only sure way to do that - given our current penal system - is to put them to death.

Here is just another example of why locking them up is not enough.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070728/ap_on_en_tv/schaeffer_killer_stabbed_4;_ylt=ApZJOlTj50FHBcHnuy olKRxkM3wV

At least this time it was two scumbags going after each other.

I am wondering how we can possibly deter some criminals, ever. From the dawn of time there have been those who kill and rob. Speaking mainly of murderers, not a one was forced into such an act. They killed because, basically, they chose to.

They say a high crime rate is the price we pay for living in a free society.


So policy and policing have no impact on crime rates? Interesting theory...

So policy and policing have no impact on crime rates? Interesting theory...


Police and policing, like a lock, will only keep an honest person honest. It will have little to no deterrent effect upon criminals. Especially when they can bond out, mere hours after, being arrested.

The backdoor to my house is almost always unlocked. It would be bad news if somebody broke in, though. Between my two boys (18 & 15), the little lady and myself, the crossfire would likely screw up the crown molding in a major way!


Wow.

You and three others in your immediate family blasting away in your house, at night, creating a "crossfire".

And you brag about it as if you're being really "safe". :@@: :@@:

The ignorant, infantile, Dirty-Harry-Wannabe, --"Iffin they come in my house, I'll blast 'em!!"-- attitude of some gun owners is truly beyond comprehension.

I do not believe in the death penalty. I think the chance of convicting the wrong person outweighs the desire for revenge. There are many horrible crimes committed in this world and I understand the desire to exact vengance, but if that vengance is directed at an innocent person it makes society at large guilty of a crime. I could support the death penalty only if it could be shown that the justice system could be perfect, and I do not believe that any system designed and run by fallible humans could achieve that.
With that said, there is a case that happened here in Wisconsin that is in it's own way far worse than the case cited at the beginning of this thread.

http://www.sheboygan-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070728/SHE0101/707280420/1062/SHEnews

I sincerely hope the perpetrator of this crime is caught and punished to the full extent allowed by Wisconsin law. I can imagine no punishment that would be adequate for this crime.

So policy and policing have no impact on crime rates? Interesting theory...

It has no effect on certain types of crime or criminals. None.

I am speaking specifically of the so-called "motiveless" crime, which is an oxymoron as there is always a motive, for every single type of crime. They call it "motiveless" because the true motive appears beyond human understanding, as in, serial killers, spree killers, mass murderers.

And then there's the scenario which is played out hundreds of times a year, so often it hardly makes the papers--a husband or wife , unhappy, who could easily walk away and perhaps take a financial hit, but chooses instead to end their little problem permanently.

NOTHING stops such sorts--not even the fear of punishment, as none thinks they'll be caught to begin with.

Regardless, people are still dying at the hands of others who've been locked up for life. You can't ignore the fact that they are still a threat, just because it doesn't jibe with your idea of what a prison should be.It's not that they aren't in line with my ideas; it's that the system is failing to do its job. Fix the system!

(This is the same system you will trust to find, convict and execute the right person. All the examples you show prove the fallibility of human ability to get it right 100% of the time. I'm not content to kill with that track record.)
Do I need to go on, or do you get it now? Prison bars, even those of SuperMax prisons, do not stop convicted murderers from a life of crime, both inside AND outside prison walls.I got your point from the start. Don't fool yourself into believing that you are raising new, startling data or informing me of anything other than specific incidents. I have long considered these issues and reject them as failures of the system you want to trust, and not worth the risk.

So do I. That's why I staunchly support the death penalty.Knock yourself out. I believe the death penalty sends the exact oposite message to the community we live in. Texas has a very active death chamber, and people keep killing one another.

Interesting----I've read of many a crook who chose execution over a life sentence spent in almost total isolation. Some would argue that THAT sentence is cruel and unusual--see Gary Mark Gilmore, who said he had a right to chose the firing squad, as indeed he did.If they pick it, fine. Just like in cases where the convict refuses all but the legally required appeals.

The ignorant, infantile, Dirty-Harry-Wannabe, --"Iffin they come in my house, I'll blast 'em!!"-- attitude of some gun owners is truly beyond comprehension.Your subtly and sensitivity to irony are just stunning!

yeah, right, sure. ok. alrighty then...........

you wanna think about your question a little more?No. Why? Should we as a society not bear some responsibily for the failure of a system we allow and encourage, put in place, fund and support?

It's not that they aren't in line with my ideas; it's that the system is failing to do its job. Fix the system!

You're the one complaining. What are your recommendations (besides rescinding the death penalty, I mean)?

This is the same system you will trust to find, convict and execute the right person. All the examples you show prove the fallibility of human ability to get it right 100% of the time. I'm not content to kill with that track record.

Using your logic, we should simply cancel out the judicial and penal systems altogether.

Come up with a better argument, please. This dog don't hunt.

Using your logic, we should simply cancel out the judicial and penal systems altogether.No it doesn't.

Come up with a better argument, please. This dog don't hunt.I don't need to come up with a better argument for the poblems with the death penalty. Your proof of how incapable the criminal justice system is at getting the job done correctly is argument enough. If you don't see a differance in the finality of death and the responsibility we as a society and you as an individual should bear for supporting a flawed system that may well kill the wrong person, then your notion of what will hunt does not seem relevent to me.

The social gravity is huge to any thinking, concerned American, whether they support the death penalty or not.

No it doesn't.

I don't need to come up with a better argument for the poblems with the death penalty. Your proof of how incapable the criminal justice system is at getting the job done correctly is argument enough.

My remarks have all dealt with the penal system, Shiloh.

The criminal justice system is something completely different. :rolleyes:

You're the one complaining. What are your recommendations (besides rescinding the death penalty, I mean)?That's another topic. What I'm compaining about is the death penalty. Do you honestly see no problems with the death penalty?

The criminal justice system is something completely different. :rolleyes:And you didn't learn anything about that system from the Duke matter? OJ matter? etc, etc.

And you didn't learn anything about that system from the Duke matter? OJ matter? etc, etc.

Um?

OJ never went to jail. Duke isn't a murderer and is therefor not subject to the death penalty.

Try again. And please stick to my arguments regarding the PENAL system specifically.

That's another topic. What I'm compaining about is the death penalty. Do you honestly see no problems with the death penalty?

Only that it's not used enough.

Um?

OJ never went to jail. Duke isn't a murderer and is therefor not subject to the death penalty.

Try again. And please stick to my arguments regarding the PENAL system specifically.Okay, you made the distinction between the penal system and the criminal justice system; I was pointing out that both systems are flawed and have the potential for abuse and failure...but you seem unable to follow your own train on this. Okay.

btw, OJ was in jail for about a year I believe, up until the system did its fine work. The Duke matter shows how the system can be populated by people willing to abuse their power in order to get elected. Both examples are cause for concern for any reasonable person who knows that the same system can send someone to the death chamber.

I am not interested in discussions about the penal system in this thread, except in so far as it shows the system as a part of the larger broken-whole. The question is about the death pealty. You might consider, however, that this broken penal system is a part of the justice system. In Texas, for example, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division is named such for just that reason.

Only that it's not used enough.Your discernment in this is scary.

Okay, you made the distinction between the penal system and the criminal justice system; I was pointing out that both systems are flawed and have the potential for abuse and failure....

Shiloh, EVERY human endeavor will have flaws. Shall we just throw our hands in the air and stop everything?

Get real. :rolleyes:

Shiloh, EVERY human endeavor will have flaws. Shall we just throw our hands in the air and stop everything?

Get real. :rolleyes:Surely this sort of knee jerk reaction is not your belief! And, I hope it is not at all what you believe I'm suggesting. I have never suggested doing nothing. I'm saying we should stop killing people.

Several things enter into this; one of the considerations is the falibility of our judgement systems. Another is my moral conviction based on my reading of the New Testiment. Another is the cultural consequences of killing as a solution. Yet another is the absurdity of explaining to my children that killing people is wrong so we're going to kill someone!

i didn't really read this post, but i wanted to reply to the title.... i only think that the exucution sentence should only come into effect if the suspect has been convicted of a terrible, ultimate evil thing. As for me, i would consider murder of humans and animals the ultimate evil.

i didn't really read this post, but i wanted to reply to the title....It's a good idea to read through the thread. Sometimes we learn things by listening to the perspectives of people with whom we differ, even if we continue to hold our original position.

As for me, i would consider murder of humans and animals the ultimate evil.
What about overrated pop icons?

It's not that they aren't in line with my ideas; it's that the system is failing to do its job. Fix the system!

(This is the same system you will trust to find, convict and execute the right person. All the examples you show prove the fallibility of human ability to get it right 100% of the time. I'm not content to kill with that track record.)
I got your point from the start. Don't fool yourself into believing that you are raising new, startling data or informing me of anything other than specific incidents. I have long considered these issues and reject them as failures of the system you want to trust, and not worth the risk.

Knock yourself out. I believe the death penalty sends the exact oposite message to the community we live in. Texas has a very active death chamber, and people keep killing one another.

Ok, I'm going to jump into this argument because this argument irritates me. The justice system (and I'm speaking from Texas' point of view, recognizing that different states have different justice systems) is not broken and I'm tired of people who claim it is.

The only major problems I recognize are that there are some things that need to be legalized (marijuana for example), that there isn't enough prison space for those who need to stay locked away, and that there is not enough funding to pursue criminal investigations. However, none of these items are problems with the system as I understand the meaning of the term.

With that said, there is no place I'd rather be charged with a crime than the United States. We have the most cautious system as practicable. You have a right to notice of the charges, you typically have right to bail, you have right to appointed counsel, you have the right to be tried by a judge OR a jury of your peers (whichever you think will be most favorable), you have the right to appeal to an independent court and counsel to assist you with that, you have the potential to appeal your appeal, and, above all, you have to be convicted BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT!

What more can you ask? Perhaps a CSI investigation of every crime, but that would quickly bankrupt government resources...and as the OJ case proved, this will not remove people's doubts.

Now Shiloh, you come along and cry simply "Fix the system!" while offering no suggestions as to why or how this should be done. As someone who works with the system, I find such statements without any foundation to be repugnant.

Basically, your point seems to be that we should abolish the death penalty because there is some minute risk of convicting an innocent person. Honestly, this point makes absolutely no sense to me, because, if you don't execute the murderer, you're going to throw them in prison for life, right? Is that not a punishment worthy of concern about convicting innocent people? What is your alternative suggestion, to never punish anyone because you might punish the wrong person? If so, that's just absurd. A good parent doesn't stop punishing their children because he/she is afraid they might punish the wrong child, and a good government doesn't stop punishing people because he/she is afraid they might punish the wrong person.

What the system can do is be very cautious about who it convicts. And low and behold, we have a system that does that! If anything, the system is TOO considerate of defendents and not concerned enough about victims as well as society as a whole. So what the *&^* are you complaining about?

P.S. As for Texas, I think we have a pretty good crime rate considering that we live on the border with Mexico and live in a gun-toting society. Furthermore, if you think it's a bad thing that people say "If you commit a crime, don't commit it in Texas" then I think you're crazy.

Basically, your point seems to be that we should abolish the death penalty because there is some minute risk of convicting an innocent person. Honestly, this point makes absolutely no sense to me, because, if you don't execute the murderer, you're going to throw them in prison for life, right? Is that not a punishment worthy of concern about convicting innocent people? What is your alternative suggestion, to never punish anyone because you might punish the wrong person? If so, that's just absurd. A good parent doesn't stop punishing their children because he/she is afraid they might punish the wrong child, and a good government doesn't stop punishing people because he/she is afraid they might punish the wrong person.

If you imprison someone for life and later find out you've imprisoned the wrong person, you can let them out of prison and at least attempt to make restitution. A mistaken execution is a little more difficult to make right.

If you imprison someone for life and later find out you've imprisoned the wrong person, you can let them out of prison and at least attempt to make restitution. A mistaken execution is a little more difficult to make right.

I don't know of a way to give a wrongly convicted person 10 years back, do you?

The only major problems I recognize are that there are some things that need to be legalized (marijuana for example), that there isn't enough prison space for those who need to stay locked away, and that there is not enough funding to pursue criminal investigations.People who need to be kept behind bars are paroled because you pot smokers keep getting busted and sentanced to prison! Texas is as bad as any state in this union for overcrowding due to rediculous sentancing practices, the unmaking of treatment options, and the paroles required to free up space.

With that said, there is no place I'd rather be charged with a crime than the United States. We have the most cautious system as practicable. You have a right to notice of the charges, you typically have right to bail, you have right to appointed counsel, you have the right to be tried by a judge OR a jury of your peers (whichever you think will be most favorable), you have the right to appeal to an independent court and counsel to assist you with that, you have the potential to appeal your appeal, and, above all, you have to be convicted BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT!Agreed. But any system can be abused and can fail in its stated goals. And this system does regularly enough that you and others are willing to say, "So, we might kill the wrong person. So what?" I'm not comfortable with that. Sorry.

Now Shiloh, you come along and cry simply "Fix the system!" while offering no suggestions as to why or how this should be done. As someone who works with the system, I find such statements without any foundation to be repugnant.Then read the thread. My debate partner was discribing the wonderful problems with the system. My response was to say fix it.

Basically, your point seems to be that we should abolish the death penalty because there is some minute risk of convicting an innocent person. Honestly, this point makes absolutely no sense to me, because, if you don't execute the murderer, you're going to throw them in prison for life, right? Is that not a punishment worthy of concern about convicting innocent people? What is your alternative suggestion, to never punish anyone because you might punish the wrong person?An executed person cannot be freed down the road when the facts become clear. A wrongly imprisoned person can, as happened right here with a man in a rape case, years afterward. There is no oops-facter allowed when you kill someone. (Bold added for emphisis.)What the system can do is be very cautious about who it convicts. And low and behold, we have a system that does that! If anything, the system is TOO considerate of defendents and not concerned enough about victims as well as society as a whole. So what the *&^* are you complaining about?Your true colors are flaring here, I'm afraid. This is not really an impartial, rational discussion for you, is it?

P.S. As for Texas, I think we have a pretty good crime rate considering that we live on the border with Mexico and live in a gun-toting society. Furthermore, if you think it's a bad thing that people say "If you commit a crime, don't commit it in Texas" then I think you're crazy.
I'm discussing the death penalty, not criticizing Texas in general or even it's having the highest execution rate in the country.

I don't know of a way to give a wrongly convicted person 10 years back, do you?Reparations are possible if they're still alive.

Reparations are possible if they're still alive.

You're talking about monetary "reparations," I assume. You can give reparations for wrongfully killing people too. But like losing part of your life and reputation in prison, death is qualitatively different from monetary reparation. Thus, the wrongfully convicted person always loses whether they spend time in prison or not.

Why you draw the line between life in prison and death, I don't know. Whatever the reason, it clearly has no logical basis. And systems need to follow a logical process.

People who need to be kept behind bars are paroled because you pot smokers keep getting busted and sentanced to prison! Texas is as bad as any state in this union for overcrowding due to rediculous sentancing practices, the unmaking of treatment options, and the paroles required to free up space.

It's interesting you assume I'm a pot smoker if I support the legalization of marijuana. Well, I'm not. Just so you know, I also support the legalization of a variety of drugs as well as prostitution and gambling. Does the fact that you are against the death penalty mean you're a murderer? No, so why would the fact that I support the legalization of pot make me a pot smoker?

And which ridiculous sentencing practices are you referring to? Or are you just shooting your mouth off about something you know nothing about? Cause I can list off some sentences sitting on my desk, and if anything, they seem woefully lacking to me....and that's ignoring the fact that they will be out on parole before the end of their sentence.

Agreed. But any system can be abused and can fail in its stated goals. And this system does regularly enough that you and others are willing to say, "So, we might kill the wrong person. So what?" I'm not comfortable with that. Sorry.

Basically, you're ok with wrongfully imprisoning someone for umpteen years but not with wrongfully killing them. I don't understand why you draw the line there....it seems to me that you don't regard imprisonment as a serious punishment involving the loss of years, reputation, and years of subjugation to the harsh realities of prison lifestyle.

Personally, I'm satisfied with a 99.999% rate of being right. Hell, I'm even ok with a 99% rate. The other .001% are casualties of the war on crime. Believe me, there are a lot more direct victims of crime out there.

Besides, if you actually examine ALL of the evidence in those "innocent" people convicted, you'll find that it's a stretch to call any of them completely innocent of all wrongdoing...you'll find that they lied to the police, made an incriminating admission, had a long criminal history, frequently associated with criminals, or similar incriminating factors. Juries don't just convict people haphazardly....at least, if you find a jury of 12 people who didn't care about seeing that justice was done, let me know cause I haven't seen anything like that yet.

An executed person cannot be freed down the road when the facts become clear. A wrongly imprisoned person can, as happened right here with a man in a rape case, years afterward. There is no oops-facter allowed when you kill someone. (Bold added for emphisis.)Your true colors are flaring here, I'm afraid. This is not really an impartial, rational discussion for you, is it?


I have no idea what any of this has to do with the passage you quoted. I will just chalk this quote up as one more nonresponsive post, and one which indicates that there is no real substance behind your position on this issue.

It's interesting you assume I'm a pot smoker if I support the legalization of marijuana. Well, I'm not. Just so you know, I also support the legalization of a variety of drugs as well as prostitution and gambling. Does the fact that you are against the death penalty mean you're a murderer? No, so why would the fact that I support the legalization of pot make me a pot smoker?The word "you" should have been "your." Don't take it personally.

And which ridiculous sentencing practices are you referring to? Or are you just shooting your mouth off about something you know nothing about?Ready, real slow this time: the practice of sending people to prison when it is not really needed, thus crowding the system to the point that paroles are given too readily.
Cause I can list off some sentences sitting on my desk, and if anything, they seem woefully lacking to me....and that's ignoring the fact that they will be out on parole before the end of their sentence.Spoken like a true non-objective party, and still supporting my point! Wow...The fact that some sentances are too light does not change the fact that a good many are overburdening the system without real reasonableness.
Basically, you're ok with wrongfully imprisoning someone for umpteen years but not with wrongfully killing them.Never said anything like that at all. Your dummy sign is showing if you think so.
I don't understand why you draw the line there....it seems to me that you don't regard imprisonment as a serious punishment involving the loss of years, reputation, and years of subjugation to the harsh realities of prison lifestyle.You don't see the difference in life and death? You don't recognize that at the time of execution all possibility to make good on a potential mistake is gone? Maybe the problems in the system stem from the fact that people with your degree of snap are involved in it!

Personally, I'm satisfied with a 99.999% rate of being right. Hell, I'm even ok with a 99% rate. The other .001% are casualties of the war on crime.You have no basis for these numbers, and you damn well know it.
Believe me, there are a lot more direct victims of crime out there.You bet. Totally agree. Not the issue, though.

Besides, if you actually examine ALL of the evidence in those "innocent" people convicted, you'll find that it's a stretch to call any of them completely innocent of all wrongdoing...you'll find that they lied to the police, made an incriminating admission, had a long criminal history, frequently associated with criminals, or similar incriminating factors.That is exactly why this discussion is taking place under this thread title. Some people make it very difficult to support any argument against the death penalty.
Juries don't just convict people haphazardly....at least, if you find a jury of 12 people who didn't care about seeing that justice was done, let me know cause I haven't seen anything like that yet.I never blamed a jury for being haphazard or uncaring.
I have no idea what any of this has to do with the passage you quoted. I will just chalk this quote up as one more nonresponsive post, and one which indicates that there is no real substance behind your position on this issue.I'm sure you don't get it. I answered this post out of respect for your general contributions on this site and what I regard as a usually reasonable position, even if we disagree. Here, though, you seem like something else all together.

Leper,

It looks like you and I are philosophically closer than either of us thought.

I also favor legalization of marijuana and prostitution. I even favor the legalizatio of hard drugs. In my opinion people should be allowed to do what they wish with their own bodies. I draw the line only at harming others. If you want to take drugs, fine. If you get in a car and drive under the influence or steal to support your drug habit, not fine.

Leper,

It looks like you and I are philosophically closer than either of us thought.

I also favor legalization of marijuana and prostitution. I even favor the legalizatio of hard drugs. In my opinion people should be allowed to do what they wish with their own bodies. I draw the line only at harming others. If you want to take drugs, fine. If you get in a car and drive under the influence or steal to support your drug habit, not fine.
Frogger, you and I agree on a lot of the same things too. :) I feel like I must be thinking somewhat logically if older people agree with me... Since you guys have so much more experience with thinking about and experiencing these things.

Pfft. Suckup.

Why you draw the line between life in prison and death, I don't know. Whatever the reason, it clearly has no logical basis. And systems need to follow a logical process.

How can you see no difference between a life sentence and a death sentence? The difference is obvious and clear. Logical? Who knows...is the difference between an apple and an orange logical?

How can you see no difference between a life sentence and a death sentence? The difference is obvious and clear. Logical? Who knows...is the difference between an apple and an orange logical?

Maybe because a Death Sentence is usually long in coming.
Probably 15-20 yrs, on average.
And most criminals who aren't lifers,like Charles Manson,
wood niver bee able to handle more Danny a few.
Years dat is.

Pfft. Suckup.
:) That's me.